Not bad. Kept the eagle, AA combinaton in a nicely updated way. The gray paints kinda wander into United territory. I've always thought the American bare metal was way classy. (Somebody on this stream does raise the question of bare metal when American/USAir add 787s to the fleet, since the metal won't be there and carbon fiber isn't shiny...)

I thought it was hard to tell...is it showing as gray, which I would strongly object to...or still staying good old silver, which made it stand out among all the others. I one time heard that the paint actually added significant weight (and more fuel consumption...is that true? I think that was from back in the Crandall days....

Agree 100%, the two ends of the aircraft appear to be visually unbalanced. I can see where they are going with the tail end but they are attempting to "say" too much in a small area as opposed to the front which is just the opposite - minimalist feel.

Yuck! SO ugly! The new logo looks like the old tails on United Airlines and the bastardized American flag on the tail is almost offensive. I sure hope they didn't spend a lot of money on this mess, as a company in bankruptcy surely doesn't have the extra cash to waste.

Mighr have been nice if they'd let all the aadvantage members see the top 5 logo change ideas and had US vote on it! I work at a small social service agency and we had to change not only our logo, but our name--and on a very limited budget it was a huge challenge. Almost every staff member had a different opinion and for every suggestion there were immediate rejections!

What was American thinking. That is the worst livery they could have come up with. They should have incorporated all of their liveries. Let's hope if a merger takes place with US Airways, they'll keep the US Airways livery. I've always loved the red, white & blue stripe and don't agree with this new livery.

Question: based on the posted photo of the 737, it looks like the fuselages are now painted, although the video made it look like they kept the bare aluminum (say that fast three times) fuselage. Is the 737 just to show how it will look on the 787?

As a 27 year employee of a competing carrier out of Atlanta, I have to say that I was always impressed that American Airlines didn't erase their heritage by modernizing their livery and branding to something new and unrecognizable.I guess now they'll just be like the rest of us. too bad and so sad.

A new Image and a fresh start is what AA need. I wish them luck on the path forwardI flew AA170. NRT- DFW on the 11th Jan 2013. First Class Flagship. Seat 1J.From the moment i entered the Cabin the flight attendant jan was most the most pleasant and customer service orientated FA I have ever met on AA. A credit to the airline. The whole trip was a pleasure. Thank you AA.

I concur with what Richard Garber said: “I’d keep the script and the stylized bird; drop the tail painting.” For me, the tail art is waaaay too busy. The new logo on the nose, which I like, could be repeated on the tail.

Regarding the possible merger: when America West rescued USAir, they conceded the USAir brand was more recognizable and used that livery; but they kept HP’s “Cactus” call sign, an “AWE” flight number designator, and the America West corporate offices in Tempe, AZ.

Like the old days. I believe there still are some terrific people working in the trenches at AA where I have always been treated well. If you treat the crew like human beings they are likely to return the favor.

I don't understand. You have no money to pay pilots, flight attendants, or ground crew, but there is money to repaint aircraft. Everyone was forced to accept pay cuts, lose pensions and the airline has money to repaint the livery. I am confused. I know the CEO, COO etc gave up their salary and other million dollar perks.

Well the main reason that they had to repaint the airplanes was due to the fact that they have a lot of orders for the 787. The 787 is a mainly carbon fiber composite airframe and not aluminum. Therefore, it would have cost AA more money to get a polished aluminum finish on the 787 than to paint all the airplanes a the current paint scheme.

They could apply that greyish metallic paint to all of their current fleet..The same as Northwest did in their Final colour scheme with the stupid nwa titles on the side.... The airlines need to let airline enthusiasts design their colour schemes not some over paid nerd in an ed executive office...AA really screwed the pooch on this one!!!

Worse than that, don't these people understand that about the most valuable thing that AA possess it their "brand"? By trashing their existing nice corporate symbals and liveries, they are throwing away billions of dollars worth of their branding. People will relate much less to these new ones than they now do to the traditional ones. Yes, that can change over time but WHY? Why? Why? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Now that I have seen an AA 737 in the new paint, I see what they are doing. The plane is painted overall light metallic silver, kind of like a Mercedes. I guess this is so there will be commonality with the new 787s. The 787s composites are naturally dark brownish-black. Not a problem with most airlines as most liveries use overall white with colorful graphics. I guess American didn't want to mess with the iconic unpainted look but is being forced by the 787 to paint. Metallic silver is the compromise Now, if they would do something with that ugly tail...

I think it's cool. They kept the legacy. Same typeface, same colors, a new version of the eagle. And they're staying with their legendary bright unpainted metal, which makes keeping the outside of the birds looking good a pretty simple deal (and saves hauling a few hundred pounds of paint around). If they merge, they'd have to re-decorate and re-brand anyway. If they don't, they needed to spiff things up a bit. Nice job, AA!

I like the look, just having trouble swallowing the amount of money it takes to re-brand a company in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings and merger talks. Horton even mentions the merger in his spiel. A merger would almost certainly mean a new look which incorporates both airlines' branding. Is that pseudo-flag looking thing on the tail supposed to accomplish that?

They would not incorporate any part of US Airways into the name or brand. It has been clear since the beginning the 2 companies would do business as American Airlines and this livery pretty much confirms that.

In a very abstract way, perhaps they are. US Airways has a "stylized flag" on the tail and it seems that in a bigger bolder way; so are they. I think this one will have to grow on me! Best AA paint job for me was the Astrojet theme.

I still don't think it's out of the question that the US Airways merger would see the American name placed onto the US AIrways livery. United and Northwest had both recently revised their brand prior to their respective mergers, albeit not quite this recently.

So we have a company that is bankrupt, can't fund its pension promises made to its employees, screwed alot of its creditors and bond holders, and has a uniformly angry and surly pissed off employee group, but - they found the money to repaint airplanes and re-brand gate areas . . . . oy vey. Yet another act of rubbing its employees noses in the corporate muck . . .

Re-organization bankruptcy is a joke. It is used as a business tool. You can't reorganize without screwing somebody out of their money. If you don't pay your obligations you don't deserve to be in business.

We all like the old AA livery but we're airplane dorks, not the general public whose butt cheeks need to fill the seats. It's not targeted at us. Changing graphics that have been around for several decades isn't throwing away your widely recognizable branding. Most companies roll out new graphics every few years to try and keep an image of a company that you should spend your money on. They can lose recognizability by messing with it too often, but I don't think one graphics overhaul in nine presidents qualifies as "too often" by anybody's standards. When done right, it'll get longer looks from 1) those who pay no attention and will be attracted to something more modern, and 2) those who will notice that there's new graphics and will look to see what else is new.

In the end, it's not going to be the graphics that make or break the airline -- it'll be a price people want to pay for a product they want to buy. However they restructure, that's obviously the goal.

Now, after seeing their final paint job, it looks like the tail colors are in the wrong order? It looks like blue,white&red? As for the US flag next to the "N"#'s, I need my glasses! The way they put American on the side,(without Airlines) and at least used a capital"A" looks clean. I myself would like to "AA" on the front in those colors,than those "Hash"marks, (Amtrack,Greyhound,and a couple other commercial company's have marks that look like that?!). Okay, now attack me for my thinking! Have a great and safe day.

I'm glad to see that I am not the only person who doesn't care for the tail in AA's new livery. I first saw the new logo several weeks ago as an update to my iPhone/iPad app. My first reaction was "really neat!" Then I took their video tour which showed the complete airplane. My reaction turned to "mega ugly!" A third grader with an Etch-a-Sketch could have designed something better. The new eagle would have looked really good on the tail (clean and modern looking).

It looks to me like the USAir logo has been incorporated into the tail colors, or is that reading too much into it? I can't say that I like it or dislike it, but it sure is different. It is another example of the disappearance of cheat lines on the fuselage, although AA's red, white, and blue lines look good on all of their aircraft. At least they kept the polished aluminum look, which is so iconic to AA.

After the big reveal, my gut reaction was the same as many - I like the logo, the typeface but the tail on the livery is just a bit too bold. After letting it settle in, I have to say I like it. One thing is for sure, the entire brand really feels like a totally different airline. Even though a re branding is expensive, it also is a chance to re-invigorate the brand, the workforce and tighten the reigns on their revenue. Delta did the same thing and pretty successfully pulled off their re-brand in 2007 out of bankruptcy. AA has a new brand, a new image and very consistent messaging. The question is, can they pull it off. Can they successfully carry the spirit of the brand through the transition period. If not, it will feel really awkward.

I wish AmericanAirlines well, and all possible success..I hope the new logo/branding/livery results in a NEW attitude, also - I flew AA last September, from Ontario to Dayton, with a stopover in Dallas, and was underwhelmed with the service and the aircraft both ways. I prefer Southwest's vibe; although I jokingly call it "The Greyhound Of The Air", I've had overwhelmingly positive experiences with Southwest.

I am a little curious. I see the mostly aluminum and non paint areas on their video but on the National News (CBS) last night and this morning it was showing that metal in WHITE. Seems to me there was an article here several months ago that the new 777's were to be delivered in white. Can somebody clear this up?

If what American wanted that their aircraft could be identified or recognized from the ground without much trouble I think that they would succeed. Just try to tell a US Air from a Delta or a United aircraft as they take off, won't be easy.

Quoting the news release "It’s a new year and a fresh new look for American Airlines as the company today unveils a new logo and exterior for its planes, including the already delivered Flagship Boeing 777-300ER aircraft set to fly on Jan. 31. In addition, American plans to continue taking delivery of new planes this year as part of its historic orders for 550 new aircraft.

I hope they didn't actually pay someone to come up with that paint scheme. I find it very unattractive. However,regardless of how their planes are painted, American's success will depend on new ideas to improve their service and in making flying a pleasant experience for the public.

I must admit, not crazy about the new design. I may be old fashioned, but I am still in love with the 50's and 60's "Astrojet" design with orange lightening strike on both sides, with orange accents on tail, engines, wings, etc. To me, that was one of the best ever, not just for American, but the best of all airlines, ever. This new scheme just don't look like American Airlines anymore.

The renderings of the 777-300ER look sharp.... but it looks a little flat in real life on the 737 flown in today. Overall I like it. Freshens everything up a bit. I wonder if they will bother doing the MD-80s ???

Have to concur with others... I think the merged company would be "American" as a perceived 'stronger' brand and fits in line with what Delta and United did (with all respect to Continental and NW)

I like the new livery, however I believe the flag on the tail would have looked better with a more realistic flag, with the image of an American Bald Eagle superimposed over it (or with the eagle, in flight, toward the cockpit. With the graphic arts technology today, there is no reason why our beautiful flag should not appear to be waving :-/

1) My immediate first thought when looking at the tail was "USAir." If I was creating a communications program anticipating a merger, I'd run as far away as possible from any USAir reference. Just too many bad memories there for far too many people.

2) Why does it take until 2 min, 40 seconds into this video to actually see the new branding?

AA should have updated their logo about 15 years ago. Just about every other airline has updated their look over the past 20 years while AA logo has been the same since 1968. It's nice, but too little, too late in my opinion.

You must be joking me? Why resort to smoke and mirrors? Isn't your brand good enough as it is? Change is fine, but this kind of change, removes confidence, not adds to it, in the eyes of the customer. What it says is we can pay millions to some consulting company, instead of looking at the root causes of our problems and addressing them.

Hint, I never purchased a package of cereal for the box, but what came in it. I never purchased a book based upon the cover, but the content. I never hired a service company based upon some new-age wacked out logo, but their reputation. And I have little respect for a company's leader who resorts to fakery in order to pursuade the consumer things are all better!

And somewhere in all this hooplah about AA, I think there is another squawk that is basically a letter from Horton to the employess in which he makes a reference to"MY GOOD FRIEND DOUG PARKER". puke puke. That has got to be dripping with sarcasm or he is just hedging his bets. Of course, there are a lot of folks that don't like either one of them and they may be good friends, just trying to figure out how to divide it up, but I don't think so.

A complete waste of $$. Changing the paint job has never resulted in inceased PAX loads nor does it enhance employee moral who largely see this waste as an insult! It demonstrates just how inept Horton and his management team are. They should have given those millions to the employee pension fund!

American Airlines has unveiled a new “soaring spirit” livery for its fleet, retiring the iconic eagle logo that has adorned its aircraft for more than four decades.

The new branding includes a matte grey fuselage with a red and blue stylised “A” with the remnants of the eagle ahead of “American” written in large letters across the forward passenger windows and exit doors. The tail is a striped red, white and blue American flag. It drops the word “Airlines” from its aircraft with the livery.